You need to read up in A2W inter cooling. Doesn't matter where the inter cooler is, as that's just the exchange to cool the intake charge via the cooling medium. The cooling of the actual liquid takes place in a front mounted radiator. He circuit is separate from the engine coolant circuit.

Benefit is the intercooler can be placed anywhere and does not need direct exposure to airflow. The intake piping does not need to run through the lower front. Benefits there are obvious. Drawbacks: need separate radiator to chill cooling liquid, ppm and lines.

BTW GM's LS9 has an A2W intercooler mounted on the top of the engine just below the blower.

My point was the water circulating in the intecooler in the manifold can easily get heat soaked and at low speed you end up with hot coolant circulating between the manifold and its own A2W frnt mounted radiator. I dont think the M5's air to water front radiator has fans to cool it down for low speed high rpm applications. I'd be surprised it ll b any different on the F80.

I am really torn here. Before the e90/92/93 my opinion was that the M3 should be a more refined variant of the top of the line 3 series engine. And while the F series represents a return to that form, the S65 is just so ridiculously awesome, that I just can't go back to a super tuned generic 3 series engine. However, I am very excited to see what the M2 will bring. It seems to me that M3 and higher have been relegated to really great touring cars. I hope the M2 shows up as the raw motorsports car that the M3 used to be.

I am really torn here. Before the e90/92/93 my opinion was that the M3 should be a more refined variant of the top of the line 3 series engine. And while the F series represents a return to that form, the S65 is just so ridiculously awesome, that I just can't go back to a super tuned generic 3 series engine. However, I am very excited to see what the M2 will bring. It seems to me that M3 and higher have been relegated to really great touring cars. I hope the M2 shows up as the raw motorsports car that the M3 used to be.

I am really torn here. Before the e90/92/93 my opinion was that the M3 should be a more refined variant of the top of the line 3 series engine. And while the F series represents a return to that form, the S65 is just so ridiculously awesome, that I just can't go back to a super tuned generic 3 series engine. However, I am very excited to see what the M2 will bring. It seems to me that M3 and higher have been relegated to really great touring cars. I hope the M2 shows up as the raw motorsports car that the M3 used to be.

PS. Fuck CAFE.

The BMW Formula 1 engine circa 1983 was based on a stock engine, it revved to around 11,000 rpm was turbo charged and produced over 1400hp. Still a world record for a 1500cc engine and possibly bhp /cc nearly 20 years later.

If that is not good enough for you WTF is?

An engine consists of a block, with pistons and rods, and a head. All the magic happens in the head and induction system. Yes the M3 might share the bottom end of a more mundane 3 series (sic.), but it does have a unique to M3 head and induction system. That's all that matters.

The NA V8 M3 with DCT is already a low 12 sec car,so is the F10 M5,i dont think this car is goin to be an 11 sec car.
Something tells me the weight difference between the s65 and this reworked N55 engine is goin to be negligible with the s65 on the lighter side,i guess it comes down to mpg.

The BMW Formula 1 engine circa 1983 was based on a stock engine, it revved to around 11,000 rpm was turbo charged and produced over 1400hp. Still a world record for a 1500cc engine and possibly bhp /cc nearly 20 years later.

If that is not good enough for you WTF is?

An engine consists of a block, with pistons and rods, and a head. All the magic happens in the head and induction system. Yes the M3 might share the bottom end of a more mundane 3 series (sic.), but it does have a unique to M3 head and induction system. That's all that matters.

Sorry, but I'm just not as impressed by what amounts to a tune of a turbo engine as I am a NA engine from M's past, and the purpose built engine of the e9x series. I am sure the F series engine will be great, but I feel like I've essentially already seen it in the form of N54/55. Great, just not that special for an M car.

As for the F1 engine, yes it's impressive, but that's not the kind of engineering going into the F series engines thus far.

Sorry, but I'm just not as impressed by what amounts to a tune of a turbo engine as I am a NA engine from M's past, and the purpose built engine of the e9x series. I am sure the F series engine will be great, but I feel like I've essentially already seen it in the form of N54/55. Great, just not that special for an M car.

As for the F1 engine, yes it's impressive, but that's not the kind of engineering going into the F series engines thus far.

You are making a few assumptions........historically BMW pride themselves on the level of engineering that goes into the M cars.....why should the latest gen be any different? You could argue that as they are starting off with an existing engine, they will have more in the budget to add the 'impressive engineering'....No?

One thing for sure....in using a common engine, and a straight 6 at that, the price will atleast allow more people to enjoy M3's.

Personally, I applaud BMW for supporting the Inline 6, every other company has dropped I6's due to difficulty in crash tests. You prefer BMW follow the other sheep and V everything?

The only shame is that BMW went V in the first place.....good job that guy was fired

Sorry, but I'm just not as impressed by what amounts to a tune of a turbo engine as I am a NA engine from M's past, and the purpose built engine of the e9x series. I am sure the F series engine will be great, but I feel like I've essentially already seen it in the form of N54/55. Great, just not that special for an M car.

As for the F1 engine, yes it's impressive, but that's not the kind of engineering going into the F series engines thus far.

Even though a purpose built M engine is more romantic than a tuned standard engine, M history shows that more often than not the M engine is based on a production engine:

Actually at least S50, S52 and S54 engines are pretty different than M50-based M52 and M54. S-series didn´t share same block, crank, pistons, head, intake manifold etc. You can check it in Realoem.com.

Actually at least S50, S52 and S54 engines are pretty different than M50-based M52 and M54. S-series didn´t share same block, crank, pistons, head, intake manifold etc. You can check it in Realoem.com.

It's no secret that the S engines were "derived" from their non-M counterparts. That doesn't mean the same exact materials have to be used.

Actually at least S50, S52 and S54 engines are pretty different than M50-based M52 and M54. S-series didn´t share same block, crank, pistons, head, intake manifold etc. You can check it in Realoem.com.

There might be a different part number, doesn't mean it's a totally different design though... They where based on the std. engines.

I guess you can do the exact same thing on Realoem.com with the next gen M3 engine. Plenty of different part numbers that separates it from the engine it is based on.

I haven't read ths whole thread, but does it look like 2 air boxes on opposite sides of the engine? Possible electric supercharger?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss330

There might be a different part number, doesn't mean it's a totally different design though... They where based on the std. engines.

I guess you can do the exact same thing on Realoem.com with the next gen M3 engine. Plenty of different part numbers that separates it from the engine it is based on.

Bottom line is, those S engines revved like an //M engine is suppose to rev. No N engine was close to 8,000 RPM, let alone 8,250. They were leaps and bounds better than the standard engine. You can tune an N54 to around 400wHP on pump gas now with bolt ons and a tune.

__________________

Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."

Nope. BMW has stated very clearly that engine/component sharing is the key way to drive costs down and increase per vehicle profitability and meet fuel efficiency goals, including the M cars. So the customer is in fact getting lower cost components relative to what they're paying. With BMW's current regime, there will be no bespoke M engines going forward (which is completely different philosophy from the 'guy who got fired'). Mind you this isn't from BMW marketing folks, blogs, automotive magazines or anything, this is right from their publicly available investment presentations/transcripts and what they're telling shareholders. The "left over" from engine budget is going right to shareholder equity. M vehicles will be more profitable going forward, but at whose expense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NISFAN

You could argue that as they are starting off with an existing engine, they will have more in the budget to add the 'impressive engineering'....No?

I haven't read ths whole thread, but does it look like 2 air boxes on opposite sides of the engine? Possible electric supercharger?

Bottom line is, those S engines revved like an //M engine is suppose to rev. No N engine was close to 8,000 RPM, let alone 8,250. They were leaps and bounds better than the standard engine. You can tune an N54 to around 400wHP on pump gas now with bolt ons and a tune.

isn't the speculated engine tri-turbo, one of which is electric to minimize lag?

Nope. BMW has stated very clearly that engine/component sharing is the key way to drive costs down and increase per vehicle profitability and meet fuel efficiency goals, including the M cars. So the customer is in fact getting lower cost components relative to what they're paying. With BMW's current regime, there will be no bespoke M engines going forward (which is completely different philosophy from the 'guy who got fired'). Mind you this isn't from BMW marketing folks, blogs, automotive magazines or anything, this is right from their publicly available investment presentations/transcripts and what they're telling shareholders. The "left over" from engine budget is going right to shareholder equity. M vehicles will be more profitable going forward, but at whose expense?

Do you realise what kind of budget is needed to develop a from scratch engine?

If you did, you would know that using an existing engine would leave plenty in reserve to give shareholders a better margin and spend serious cash on 'engineering'.

Forget the "based on" and "different parts". What I care about is the result, and however many parts might have been change or "heavily modified", the new TT I6 will NOT achieve the result M had set before. Every M3 had more power, more torque and higher redline. By today's standards this new M3 engine should have gotten a 9K RPM redline, but with FI it won't even rev above 7.5K RPM. If you want a FI I6 just get a 335i or better the coming M340i, but let the M3 stay "Motorpsort".

Regardless of what engines the M3 cars used in the past,there's no arguing the NA high revving V8 is more fun than a twin turbo in line six.
The S65 is being replaced by a twin turbo reworked N55 for costs reasons.

Regardless of what engines the M3 cars used in the past,there's no arguing the NA high revving V8 is more fun than a twin turbo in line six.
The S65 is being replaced by a twin turbo reworked N55 for costs reasons.

I agree. I remember the V8 M3 coomercial "revolution". "The first production V8 M3, eight thousand four hundred revolutions per minute."

Good points. Also, "Motorsport" in prior years past actually meant an engine or close derivative that was actually used in racing in conjunction with the production of the new automobile. With this last gen, not only did you get an engine used in racing, but one very closely related to technologies from the F1 racing and McLaren F1. Not so with the new gen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levi

Forget the "based on" and "different parts". What I care about is the result, and however many parts might have been change or "heavily modified", the new TT I6 will NOT achieve the result M had set before. Every M3 had more power, more torque and higher redline. By today's standards this new M3 engine should have gotten a 9K RPM redline, but with FI it won't even rev above 7.5K RPM. If you want a FI I6 just get a 335i or better the coming M340i, but let the M3 stay "Motorpsort".

Wishful thinking...it will go mostly to the bottom line and the M cars will still not be quite as profitable as the non-M cars (vs. minuscule profit per vehicle of prior gens). Not to mention other 'serious engineering' costs such as such as fake engine sounds, fake steering, fake manual transmissions, fake road feel, fake M cars, etc. There is really nothing groundbreaking about the M5 and M6 technology wise that make them game changers, apart from clever ways of using turbos to boost power and attempt to mimic N/A engine characteristics and improve fuel efficiency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Do you realise what kind of budget is needed to develop a from scratch engine?

If you did, you would know that using an existing engine would leave plenty in reserve to give shareholders a better margin and spend serious cash on 'engineering'.